Solon and before Solon?
Hello,
I just saw an interesting documentary about Solon and the following questions came to mind:
Before Solon (and to a certain extent during Solon), there was hardly any aristocracy. Was it also the case that no one had political rights except for the archons, the Areopagus, and the nobility? Were the archons also promoted to the Areopagus after one year, as was the case under Solon?
If a war had broken out earlier, would all four phyla have participated in the war?
It was also interesting that the Council of 400, for example, was elected only by the top three phyla. But could these three phyla also elect someone from the fourth phyla?
(1 votes)
Loading...
Before Solon, Athens was actually dominated by an aristocracy. This small group of rich and influential families concentrated the political power. Political rights were severely restricted and limited to a small elite.
Solon led in the 6. Century BC reforms that fundamentally changed the political landscape of Athens. He created a new constitutional system that gave more citizens the opportunity to participate politically.
In previous wars, all the capable citizens of a political party were usually involved. The phylls were primarily social and religious units, but they were also mobilized for military purposes. The Council of the 400 was an oligarchical counter-representation to democracy, it was elected by the three most prosperous phyllies to cut the power of the People’s Assembly. It is unlikely that these three phylls would have chosen someone from the fourth phylique, as this was against the principle of oligarchical rule.
LG from Tel Aviv
Thank you! Do you know if the archons were transported to the areopag after 1 year of the day before solon?
The exact practice of transport in the Areopag before Solon is not fully clarified and is interpreted differently by historians. It is possible that there has already been a tradition of taking up former archons in the Areopag, but this was probably not as formalized as later.
LG from Tel Aviv
The statement that the 400 Council had been elected by the three most prosperous phyllies is wrong. Apparently (as the questioner) phyllia and asset classes have been confused.
The 400 Council was created by Solon as a political institution. It was occupied with 100 citizens from the 4 phyxilics (in the sources there is no information, whether by choice, lot or a combination of these procedures). The Council of the 400 was not clearly oligarchical and intended to limit the power of the People’s Assembly. The only function mentioned is a pre-consultation. Members of the lowest asset class (so-called thets) apparently could not become members of the Council of the 400.
An alleged constitution of the Drakon with a council of 401 (occupied by trials, with poor citizens excluded) in the time before Solon is a later oligarchical invention (see ).
Hey, thanks. I don’t understand: there were 4 asset classes but more phylene? And the phylenes put the people for the advice of the 400? What was a Phyle under Sollon?
Understand, so he could fundamentally determine who determines which office.
To the Council of 400 is no longer known, a choice by asset classes is not specified.
There was no choice to the folk court.
According to Aristoteles, Athenaion Politeia 8, 1 – 2, Solon has cancelled the archaeological order by the Areopag and introduced a slogan from a short list of pre-selected ones (the remarks that deviate from Aristotle, Politics 2, 9, 1273 b 35 – 1274 a 17, Solon has represented the aristocratic principle of choice, must be interpreted as a scarce general statement that does not aim at accuracy in every detail). Peter J. Rhodes (Archontes [I, Office]. In: The new Pauly (DNP) : Encyclopedia of Antiquity; Altertum. Edited by Hubert Cancik and Helmuth Schneider. Band1: A – Ari. Stuttgart ; Weimar, Metzler, 1996, column 1026 – 1028) says that the alleged appointment of the archons by the Areopag in front of Solon could, however, be based on a misunderstanding of a dokimasia (δοκιμασία), a mainly formal aptitude test of applicants for offices (e.g. possession of civil rights, fulfillment of prescribed civil obligations, mental and characteral minimum requirements). If the indication applies to Aristoteles, Athenaion Politeia, the tyrants must be in 6th place. Century BC have returned to the direct election.
The political order created by Solon remained formal. Peisistratos had a significant influence. His relatives and followers or nobles subordinate to him came to high offices.
Peisistratos didn’t ban all the aristocracy. Individual opposing nobles were banned or went to exile (sometimes they could return later).
It’s like the asset classes chose. So they chose the set candidates, right? Were there any candidates set up?
Somehow I hear two different explanations…
The phylene presented candidates, but the final election was made by a lot process. The asset classes played a role in determining which offices could be dressed at all, but not directly at the election of the archons.
Could you also tell me (my latest question) how the Tyrannis had an influence on the state design of Solons? So what happened to the Arcjontes and the Areopag now. Peisistratotes somehow banished the nobility (the first asset class)
And the asset classes chose the people set up by the phylls? Does this also apply to the folk court / archaeological? So there were also set up by the Phylen Mneschen, who were then elected by the electorate?
There were 4 asset classes and 4 phylene. These were very different divisions, one by fortune, the other after another belonging, which did not depend on fortune.
The people for the advice of the 400 were put out of the 4 phylls, each 100.
Phylene were groups in which a people or a state were divided. Affiliation was hereditary. There was a religious heroic cult with the idea of this heroen as a ancestor.
These phylenes already existed before Solon.
But the asset classes chose the council or what do I get wrong?